Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals

Published on Oct 1, 2008in Journal of Advanced Nursing2.376
· DOI :10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04816.x
Judith Gedney Baggs22
Estimated H-index: 22
(OHSU: Oregon Health & Science University),
Marion E. Broome32
Estimated H-index: 32
(IUPUI: Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis)
+ 2 AuthorsMargaret H. Kearney26
Estimated H-index: 26
(UR: University of Rochester)
Title. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. Aim. This paper is a report of a study to assess the beliefs and preferences of reviewers for nursing journals about blinding of authors to reviewers, reviewers to authors, neither or both. Background. Blinding of author and reviewer names in the manuscript review process has been of interest to nursing editors, but reports that are based on data rather than simply opinion concern the editorial practices of biomedical rather than nursing journals. There has been no study of nursing journal reviewer beliefs and preferences related to blinding. Method. A descriptive web-based survey was conducted. The sample included 1675 anonymous reviewers, recruited through 52 editors of nursing journals from their review panels. Data were collected in 2007. Findings. Double-blinding of reviews was the most common method reported. Ninety per cent of respondents reported that the papers they received to review did not include author names. When author names were blinded, 62% of reviewers could not identify the authors of papers; another 17% could identify authors £10% of the time. Double-blinding was the method preferred by 93AE6% of reviewers, although some identified some advantages to an unblinded open review process. Conclusion. Nursing journal reviewers are generally very satisfied with doubleblinding and believe it contributes to the quality of papers published. Editors or editorial boards interested in a more open review process could consider alternatives such as offering authors and reviewers the option to unblind themselves. Simply announcing that the review process will henceforth be unblinded would probably lead to loss of reviewers.
  • References (33)
  • Citations (44)
📖 Papers frequently viewed together
233 Citations
34 Citations
223 Citations
78% of Scinapse members use related papers. After signing in, all features are FREE.
#1Margaret H. Kearney (UR: University of Rochester)H-Index: 26
#2Judith Gedney Baggs (OHSU: Oregon Health & Science University)H-Index: 22
Last. Margaret Comerford Freda (Yeshiva University)H-Index: 20
view all 5 authors...
Purpose: To describe nursing journal reviewers' professional backgrounds, reviewing experience, time investment, and perceptions of their role. Design: Exploratory descriptive cross-sectional study. Methods: A 69-question survey containing both fixed-option and open-ended questions and accessed via the World Wide Web was completed by 1,675 nursing journal reviewers who had been invited to participate by editors of 52 nursing journals. Findings: Participants were from 44 countries, with 74% from ...
28 CitationsSource
#1Amber E. Budden (UCSB: University of California, Santa Barbara)H-Index: 16
#2Tom Tregenza (University of Exeter)H-Index: 42
Last. Christopher J. Lortie (York University)H-Index: 34
view all 6 authors...
233 CitationsSource
#1Glenn Regehr (U of T: University of Toronto)H-Index: 69
#2Georges Bordage (UIC: University of Illinois at Chicago)H-Index: 36
Objective In order to inform discussions about possible changes to Medical Education's blinding policy, members of the journal's editorial board were interested in discovering reviewers' and authors' preferences with regard to the current double-blind policy and various alternatives. Methods In September 2005, an 8-question, web-based survey was sent to all authors and reviewers who had submitted or reviewed a manuscript for Medical Education in 2003 and 2004 (n = 2632). The questions asked abou...
39 CitationsSource
#1Joseph S. Ross (Yale University)H-Index: 52
#2Cary P. Gross (Yale University)H-Index: 52
Last. Harlan M. Krumholz (Yale University)H-Index: 170
view all 10 authors...
ContextPeer review should evaluate the merit and quality of abstracts but may be biased by geographic location or institutional prestige. The effectiveness of blinded peer review at reducing bias is unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of blinded review on the association between abstract characteristics and likelihood of abstract acceptance at a national research meeting.Design and SettingAll abstracts submitted to the American Heart Association's annual Scientific Sessions research meeting ...
114 CitationsSource
#1Margaret H. Kearney (UR: University of Rochester)H-Index: 26
#2Margaret Comerford Freda (Albert Einstein College of Medicine)H-Index: 20
34 CitationsSource
7 CitationsSource
1 CitationsSource
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to prospectively determine the incidence and nature of unblinding by authors as to their identities or institutions in their submission of original major manuscripts to two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The editors of two radiology journals reviewed 880 major original manuscripts submitted to their journals during a 6-month period without knowledge of the identities and institutions of the authors. Each ...
41 CitationsSource
#1Joseph A. Smith (VUMC: Vanderbilt University Medical Center)H-Index: 24
#2Randall Nixon (VUMC: Vanderbilt University Medical Center)H-Index: 1
Last. Hector H. Henry (VUMC: Vanderbilt University Medical Center)H-Index: 1
view all 5 authors...
ABSTRACTPurpose: A procedure whereby reviewers are not informed of the author or institutional identity for submitted abstracts is sometimes considered a more equitable and impartial process for selection of the content for a scientific program. We performed a prospective randomized study to evaluate the impact of a reviewer blinding process on scientific program content.Materials and Methods: A total of 234 abstracts submitted for presentation at the 2001 meeting of the Southeastern Section of ...
21 CitationsSource
Cited By44
#1Jonathan P. TennantH-Index: 10
#2Tony Ross-Hellauer (Graz University of Technology)H-Index: 5
Peer review is embedded in the core of our knowledge generation systems, perceived as a method for establishing quality or scholarly legitimacy for research, while also often distributing academic prestige and standing on individuals. Despite its critical importance, it curiously remains poorly understood in a number of dimensions. In order to address this, we have analysed peer review to assess where the major gaps in our theoretical and empirical understanding of it lie. We identify core theme...
#1David B. ResnikH-Index: 31
#2Elise SmithH-Index: 10
view all 4 authors...
#1Tony Ross-Hellauer (Graz University of Technology)H-Index: 5
#2Edit GöröghH-Index: 1
Open peer review (OPR) is moving into the mainstream, but it is often poorly understood and surveys of researcher attitudes show important barriers to implementation. As more journals move to implement and experiment with the myriad of innovations covered by this term, there is a clear need for best practice guidelines to guide implementation. This brief article aims to address this knowledge gap, reporting work based on an interactive stakeholder workshop to create best-practice guidelines for ...
Peer review is a process designed to produce a fair assessment of research quality prior to publication of scholarly work in a journal. Demographics, nepotism, and seniority have been all shown to affect reviewer behavior suggesting the most common, single-blind review method (or the less common open review method) might be biased. A survey of current research suggests that double-blind review offers a solution to many biases stemming from author's gender, seniority, or location without imposing...
#1David B. Resnik (NIH: National Institutes of Health)H-Index: 31
#2Susan A. Elmore (NIH: National Institutes of Health)H-Index: 20
2 CitationsSource
#1Jonathan P. TennantH-Index: 10
#2Jonathan M. DuganH-Index: 2
Last. Julien ColombH-Index: 10
view all 33 authors...
3 CitationsSource
#1Jonathan P. Tennant (Imperial College London)H-Index: 10
#2Jonathan M. Dugan (University of California, Berkeley)H-Index: 2
Last. Julien ColombH-Index: 10
view all 33 authors...
Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With...
37 CitationsSource
#1Maite Solans-Domènech (Open University of Catalonia)H-Index: 7
#2Imma Guillamón (Ciber)H-Index: 3
Last. Joan M. V. Pons Rafols (Ciber)H-Index: 14
view all 7 authors...
To blind or not researcher’s identity has often been a topic of debate in the context of peer-review process for scientific publication and research grant application. This article reports on how knowing the name and experience of researchers/institutions influences the qualification of a proposal. We present our experience of managing the peer-review process of different biomedical research grants. The peer-review process included three evaluation stages: first, blinded assessment; second, unbl...
2 CitationsSource
#1Joshua A. Hirsch (Harvard University)H-Index: 49
#2Laxmaiah Manchikanti (University of Louisville)H-Index: 71
Last. Robert W TarrH-Index: 24
view all 10 authors...
Peer review of scientific articles submitted for publication has been such an integral component of innovation in science and medicine that participants (be they readers, reviewers, or editors) seldom consider its complexity. Not surprisingly, much has been written about scientific peer review. The aim of this report is to share some of the elements of that discourse with readers of the Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery ( JNIS ).
5 CitationsSource